I want to talk for a bit about Presidential elections. Especially since there isn't one currently happening, we can talk about it a little differently (hopefully). Two candidates run, and the American people all have the power to choose one or the other. How do we decide who to cast a vote for? Or how do we decide if we're even to vote at all?We don't know the candidates personally (most likely). We don't know anybody who does know them personally (most likely). So the information that we have about them is directly (or indirectly) passed to us from different forms of media. There are also certain issues which seem more important to the average American, so debates and interviews seem geared on prying into a candidates views on certain issues. The thinking is, "If we can't know them, we want to know what they think about what I think is important." Is there a better way to make our decisions? If not, then what's important to us?
Ever since I was a kid, most of the people that I've known who voted were very drawn to the issue of abortion. I've seen many people cast their vote almost purely based on this issue, or certainly it was heavily weighted. I would like to understand this kind of thinking a little bit better. I am in no way trying to say that abortion is an issue that doesn't matter, or that it's not important. But I've never seen a President actually play a major role in this issue. No President has single-handedly made abortion legal, and no President has ever over-turned legalized abortion. I know that they could somehow be connected in a loose way by electing a Supreme Court Justices who shares their views on this issue. But, since Pro-Life people are still holding their breath on that miracle snowball effect to take place... maybe the issues that are dealt with most directly by our Presidents during their terms should be the ones that we care the most about when placing our votes.
Then for those who don't vote at all... nobody needs to defend themselves, but since all we hear all our life is how people died to give you the right to do it and all that jazz, what are some reasons not to?
Abortion is something that people (on both sides) are extremely passionate about, and I'd say for good reason. But is the President the best avenue for getting your side of that issue upheld? At times it seems like we're voting on which plumber we want working on our pipes based on which of the 2 local dentists he supports. It might be important for a plumber to pick which dentist he wants to go to, but it has very little outcome on how your pipes are going to work after he leaves your house.
.JPG)
24 comments:
I voted for Bush when he ran for his first term because he claimed to be pro-life, and I was something of a one-issue voter at the time. During the course of his term, I realized what a misnomer pro-life was for Bush and most Republicans.
The sad reality is that America has become a two-party system, and neither party is "pro-life." Republicans largely (though not all) oppose abortion, but they are pro-death penalty and usually pro-war. Democrats on the other hand tend to oppose the death penalty and be less outspokenly pro-war, but they support abortion on demand and partial-birth abortion.
This is the reason I didn't vote in the last election. Besides the fact that the two candidates differed very little on any particular issue, neither candidate supported a consistent life ethic, i.e. neither opposed abortion, war, and the death penalty.
i voted for bush for both terms, mainly for economic reasons in the first term (i'm for small gov't/free market) and second term largely because "he got us into this mess, he's probably better equipped to get us out." well he hasn't delivered much on either front...he has made some pretty foolish economic decisions and, not that it's entirely his fault, but we're still in iraq.
anyway i guess that's not really the issue at hand. as far as abortion, it's never really been a tie-breaking issue for me. i know it's immoral to choose your own convenience over your child's life, regardless of how developed they are. but as you eluded to, ryan, people will go on doing it if they want to...the president can do very little to change that. in terms of moral issues, i don't think choosing the right president will do much these days. there may have been a time when the president was to be a role model, but i'm pretty sure that nobody looks at the president that way anymore. he's more of a joke than anything else. and as such, the only way to change the country for the better is to change the people. problem is, the country's going down the tubes pretty fast.
just to throw the old peanut around, i'd be curious as to what you guys think about war and the death penalty. jesus forgave the woman condemned to death. jesus said that he who lives by the sword will die by the sword. but, the same god, in the days of the old testament, told the israelites to kill all of the people in the land they were going to occupy. the law made it clear to the hebrews that the death penalty was the only suitable punishment for many sins. so there must be a time to kill, and a time to let live. really, i guess it comes down to doing god's will. but how do we know his will? how do we know we're not supposed to be warring? is it just a feeling we get?
Sean, I'm going to leave your "peanut" question to buddy for now, since I know very well that he has some thoughts on those questions.
But it brings up another point about our decision making process for choosing a President. The War/National Security. That was another issue that was played up very highly to voters, and it seemed to make a big difference to a lot of folks. Bush's campaign counted on people deep down being afraid and wanting a "war" president to help save them from evil doers. This also went hand in hand with his supposed Christianity. Should a Christian President want to be known as being a war President??
being known as a war president, in and of itself, isn't bad. was roosevelt a bad president because he 'got us involved' in world war 2? what it comes down to is, did he do what's right. so let's assume for a second that bush's motivations are entirely moral...that he feels he is doing his best to help free the people of iraq. let's assume that the only way to free those people is to take out their oppressive government by force. whether or not it's true, let's assume it's what he (perhaps naively) believes. suddenly, it's not such a bad thing to be a war president. maybe he shouldn't have gotten us involved in someone else's business, but he's no monster. problem is, i don't think morals are his only guiding light. he's probably moved mainly by pressure from the republican party and by worldly "christians" with money and power. i don't think he has many opinions of his own. i sometimes get the sense that he's the president not because he wants to lead and direct our country, but because he likes the cushy job. actually, i get that sense from a lot of presidential candidates. what we need is a president who cares about this country, as well as the rest of the world. someone who is a worthy role model. if we had that, whether or not he was a war president would be secondary. fat chance of finding that in a politician though.
I guess I should explain more what I meant. Any President that serves during a time when the country is at war is not automatically known as a "war President." Bush is a self-proclaimed war president, which is a general statement about himself. It has nothing to do with specific right/wrong decisions he would/will make when it comes to war/violence. It is said with the assumption that the people want a strong President who isn't "afraid" to go to war against evil doers. Peaceful solutions are also known as wimpy solutions.
Now, my question is this: Is that truly what the attitude of a Christian President should be? Pumping his fist with his Army Jacket on getting the crowd riled up about how we're going to take the others out? Does that display the sadness and tragic effects that wars have on everybody involved? If there ever was a just-war that our country was involved in, I would think that the attitude of our leader should be one of humility, not prideful or revenge driven.
The reason I'm trying to shift the focus away from Bush being specifically right/wrong in the Iraq war is because George Bush will never run for President again. So while i absolutely feel that the President (and other military/political leaders) should have their motives brought into the light, the purpose of this discussion is to figure out how to evaluate our motives and future decisions.
For an ostensible follower of the Prince of Peace to call himself a War President seems to me the worst kind of oxymoron.
As far as differences in God's commands from Old to New Testament, do you believe that genocide is wrong? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do. But God commanded genocide in the Old Testament. Even though God commanded it in the Old Testament, we believe it's wrong today. I believe that the same applies to all manner of killing, not just genocide.
I write on this topic often at Screwing for Virginity, so for a more exhaustive explanation, please review my archives. But here's my position in brief:
1. In Jesus, we have the most complete revelation of God.
2. Christ promotes grace and forgiveness; war renders both impossible.
3. Christ left us with a life-affirming morality. But obedience precedes morality. Therefore, if God commands war or killing (as he did in the Old Testament), it is our responsibility to obey (see the stories of Abraham, Jephthah, and Peter for examples).
Regarding how we know what God's will is, that seems to me part of working out our faith in fear and trembling.
P.S.
The Abraham, Jephthah, and Peter stories are examples of obedience preceding morality, not of God commanding death (although that is what happens in two of the examples).
ryan, i see what you mean now...i guess i'm too disconnected from the media to realize that's how bush promoted himself. i certainly agree that any leader should exude the characteristics of christ, including humility. problem is that the public sees humility as weakness.
buddy, i will probably agree with you on most of your points, but just do be the devil's advocate, do you think there have been just wars that god has not directly commanded us to get involved with? what if we hadn't gotten involved in world war 2? should we, as a country, turn the other cheek when we get attacked? should a government sit there and let innocent people die needlessly? i'm sure these are all things you've thought about, but i really haven't. i'm not much of a thinker, as it were.
this relates somewhat to the death penalty, too. in my mind, it's not a question of justice v. mercy, it's a question of repentance. jesus could easily forgive someone because he knew they were sorry. we don't have that luxury, though sometimes we can tell. did he ever tell the pharisees their sins were forgiven? not that i recall, presumably because they never thought they were wrong and therefore never repented. it makes me wonder how he would have handled a ruthless dictator.
Sean,
I have thouoght a lot about WWII, and these are some of my thoughts.
I think we would both agree that something can have a just cause and yet not be carried out justly. I think that at the very least, WWII is an example of this. Look at the firebombings of Germany and the treatment of Japanese Americans; these are not examples of justice.
But I'm not sure that WWII had a just cause. I don't mean that Hitler wasn't evil and needed to be taken out. What I am suggesting is that had justice been the Allies' true intent, Hitler would not have risen to power in the first place.
The Treaty of Versailles unjustly put the financial burden of WWI on Germany, plunging a once great economic power into national poverty. This created the perfect opportunity for an intelligent and articulate madman to exploit the already existing German nationalism and need for a scapegoat.
Even once Hitler's atrocities were known to the U.S., congress drafted a policy of non-involvement. Not until the bombing of Pearl Harbor did the U.S. involve itself. A concept of justice became the reason that men laid down their lives to fight in Europe, but it is not the reason the U.S. declared war.
As to your death penalty question, I don't know if I agree that Jesus "knew" people were sorry any more than we can. But that's not really your question. The problem with the death penalty is that it destroys the possibility of repentance. From a practical perspective, capital punishment is more expensive than life-terms in prison. I don't oppose imprisonment per se (although the current U.S. prison system needs to be reexamined), because someone in prison has the opportunity to repent. Whether they do is up to them.
buddy,
i'm certainly no wwii expert, so i don't really have anything to say. plus we're getting off topic, which i'm sure bugs ryan. so let me just say you have a lot of good points. just for something to think about though, you said that the u.s. stayed out of the war even though they knew of hitler's atrocities. i can't help but imagine that hitler is the reason the u.s. is so willing now to enter into wars with countries that are governed by a questionable leader.
i have never established a position of my own on the death penalty, so again i'm just playing devil's advocate. though i guess that means i'm not against it. in the words of geddy lee, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. arguing the death penalty would likely pan into a discussion of our views on the nature of god as well as our views on predestination v freewill. so in light of keeping ryan's forum on task we'll just have to respectfully disagree.
Ryan,
You said that the president doesn't have a lot of control over abortion laws. Haven't anti-abortion presidents vetoed bills allowing partial-birth abortion?
Yes, I acknowledge that they're not completely disconnected from the issue. But if the best a pro-life President can do is try to maintain the status quo, then maybe the issue doesn't deserve my vote in and of itself. Like you said, a Pro-life President that doesn't fight hard to abolish abortion is not exactly pro-life.
now, a difference might be if a candidate did more than just claim to be pro-life. If they actually had a plan in place that would put an end to the current state, I might agree that casting a vote for that candidate would be a good idea. In the meantime, I think we need to be more concerned with issues like war/foreign policy, which every single President has had to directly deal with for as far back as I can remember (i have a pretty good memory).
Ryan,
In your original post, you asked some reasons not to vote. I mentioned one (on which we got sidetracked), so I'd like to bring it back around and offer another.
Historically, Christianity has often been very anti-authoritarian. Some historians, e.g. Gibbon, attribute the fall of the Roman empire to the emergence of a movement that eschewed political involvement.
A tradition of Christian anarchy is widespread, from the Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy to the French theologian Jacques Ellul. Other movements such as the Quakers and the Amish seem to ignore political structures altogether.
I know anarchy is often used as a pejorative for nihilism, and I'm not advocating that at all. I'm saying that Christianity seems to work best within what Howard Zinn calls grass-roots social movements.
Governments are powers and principalities, and we know from Scripture that many of them are opposed to the Kingdom of God. I'm all for tenuous partnerships when the government's interests align with God's, e.g. caring for the poor, protecting aliens, and defending the downtrodden, but I don't believe we should buy into it whole-heartedly.
Often government becomes an expedient, and so rather than actually take care of people, we vote for welfare reform or anti-abortion politicians and become complacent, believing that our work is done.
So, recognizing the anti-authoritarian nature of Christianity and the historical tradition of Christian anarchism, recognizing that the U.S. government is often opposed to the Kingdom of God, and recognizing the tendency of voting to make Christians complacent, I choose not to vote.
Buddy, those all seem like very compelling reasons to me. I was hoping that somebody wouldn't see it that way and would let their views be understood in contrast. Here are a couple of thoughts that came to my mind that I can throw out there...
Isn't it more likely for our particular government agendas to be more opposed to the Kingdom of God if our Christians are turning their backs on the system and refusing to try and "change things from the inside?" basically, could what you're proposing actually make things worse in a way?
I guess we'll start with that.
If the christians who are voting and then becoming complacent stop voting, but don't begin to actively embody Christ in the world, yes, things will get worse. But when Christians do what they are called to do, things get better, whether they're also voting or not.
I'm failing to see the direct connect between voting and complacency. I whole-heartedly agree that some Christians are complacent and do only the bare minimum (in this case, voting) in order to feel they are doing what they can. But it's not that voting is making them complacent, it's that they're already complacent, so all they do is vote.
So to suggest that not voting will somehow put a stop to someone's complacency doesn't seem to add up in my mind. If you take a complacent Christian and convince them not to vote, they will do the bare minimum still but it will look differently. The solution to that problem doesn't seem to be connected to voting or not voting.
I'm not sure that all complacent voters see voting as the bare minimum. Some may genuinely believe that by voting, they are doing what they should do. We would critique that attitudem however, and say that they are in fact complacent, because voting is not action per se.
I'm not encouraging complacent Christians not to vote. The bare minimum is at least something. But if we're doing everything we're supposed to be doing (the "clothed maximum," shall we say?), voting becomes redundant, because we no longer need to elect officials to do what we're already doing.
I guess I'm trying to understand more why it would be a good idea not to vote. Basically, if there was a clear difference between the 2 candidates, and you felt that one was a much better candidate... would you still think it better not to vote?
I don't really see it as redundant to vote for a candidate that you feel will better help with what you're trying to accomplish than the other. He's not doing it instead of you, but it's not an either/or type of thing. We have to do our part, period. That has nothing to do w/ whether or not we vote. So saying that if we're doing our part we wouldn't need to vote doesn't really click for me.
Have you ever read the book "God's Politics" (this is for anybody, really)? A good friend of mine is reading it now and I was wondering if you had any feedback if you had read it.
So in conclusion, I am an anarchist, and you are not.
I haven't read God's Politics. Is the author Yoder? It sounds interesting.
See you Saturday.
Well, perhaps you could explain more what Christian anarchy looks like Biblically so I can understand it better.
All I was trying to point out was that you saying it would be redundant doesn't even mean it would be bad, just not necessary. But it seems like your original point on Christians being involved politically isn't just that it's not necessary, it's that it's not best.
the author is Jim Wallace.
and yes, i'll see you on Saturday.
Check out this article from Wikipedia (I'm addicted to this website):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism
Catholic Worker Ammon Hennacy defined Christian anarchism as:
"...being based upon the answer of Jesus to the Pharisees when Jesus said that he without sin should be the first to cast the stone, and upon the Sermon on the Mount which advises the return of good for evil and the turning of the other cheek. Therefore, when we take any part in government by voting for legislative, judicial, and executive officials, we make these men our arm by which we cast a stone and deny the Sermon on the Mount.
"The dictionary definition of a Christian is one who follows Christ; kind, kindly, Christ-like. Anarchism is voluntary cooperation for good, with the right of secession. A Christian anarchist is therefore one who turns the other cheek, overturns the tables of the moneychangers, and does not need a cop to tell him how to behave. A Christian anarchist does not depend upon bullets or ballots to achieve his ideal; he achieves that ideal daily by the One-Man Revolution with which he faces a decadent, confused, and dying world".
I've heard good things about Yoder's "The Politics of Jesus" as well.
MOM is at 8:00, right?
Just kidding.
Wow, that's quite an article. It's funny because as I read all the explanations above, I had all of these questions and criticisms... almost all were acknowledged below. I found the answers to my questions to be unsatisfactory, though.
I don't see their view to be one that is consistent with the whole of scripture. They seem to ignore what doesn't fit into their plan. I'm ALL for turning the other cheek and the principles they stand for, because they are the principles we (Christians) are all supposed to. but (at least now, i'm still thinking it all over) I don't think the whole of their position holds water.
Keep in mind (not that you aren't) that this is an encyclopedia article about Christian anarchism, not a work written by a Christian anarchist.
Also, it may be more helpful to talk about anarchisms instead of viewing Christian anarchism as a unified viewpoint. Some Christian anarchists are more in line with right-wing anarchism (laissez faire economics, etc.), while I tend to lean more toward left-wing/socialist anarchism (shocking, I know).
I'm also sympathetic to Professor De La Paz's "rational anarchism" in Heinlein's The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. I see goverment as an expedient, but sometimes, the expedient is necessary.
So I'm not saying I'll never vote (and I'm certainly not trying to make anarchist converts), but these are some reasons that I don't generally do so.
Post a Comment